Re: [Bug 23933] Proposal: Change constraints to use WebIDL dictionaries

On 06/12/2013 12:07 AM, Jan-Ivar Bruaroey wrote:
> I want to clarify that my proposal does not mandate ignoring mandatory 
> constraints, it only allows it. The web developer decides whether to 
> fail always (which is basically the default now) or not.

How would I tell the browser to throw an error on unknown constraints if 
your proposal was implemented?

> I don't see how we can go to last call with a constraint concept 
> antithetical to standard future-proofing practice and with real-world 
> footgun-evidence, that misconstrues basic established constructs in 
> webidl, that has barely been tested, and many find hard to use 
> correctly even for basic width-height use-cases.

As explained in my other reply, the only thing you need for 
future-proofing is a function that returns all supported constraints. 
Developers would use that function to strip unknown keys from 
user-defined dictionaries, prior to passing them into getUserMedia(). 
There is no need to ignore unknown constraints.

Gili

> I propose that we submit our spec for technical review. I understand 
> there's a group that does that?
>
> .: Jan-Ivar :.
>
> On 12/3/13 11:40 AM, Cullen Jennings (fluffy) wrote:
>> The issue is not dictionaries, the issue is what happens to unknown 
>> constraints. I am strongly against a design where unknown mandatory 
>> constrains are silently ignored.
>>
>> On Nov 28, 2013, at 12:51 AM, bugzilla@jessica.w3.org wrote:
>>
>>> https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=23933
>>>
>>> Stefan Hakansson LK <stefan.lk.hakansson@ericsson.com> changed:
>>>
>>>            What    |Removed                     |Added
>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
>>>
>>>             Summary|Change constraints to use   |Proposal: Change
>>>                    |WebIDL dictionaries         |constraints to use 
>>> WebIDL
>>>                    |                            |dictionaries
>>>
>>> --- Comment #2 from Stefan Hakansson LK 
>>> <stefan.lk.hakansson@ericsson.com> ---
>>> (In reply to Gili from comment #1)
>>>> Just to be clear: the implication of this proposal is that users 
>>>> will need
>>>> to ask for a set of constraints, but then they will have to check 
>>>> that the
>>>> returned device meets those constraints (because some of them may 
>>>> have been
>>>> omitted as "unknown").
>>> That is not true really. Since the proposal also includes a method 
>>> that allows
>>> the app to probe for what constraints that the UA understands, it 
>>> can first
>>> check, and if one or more constraints the app wants to use as 
>>> mandatory are not
>>> known by the UA the app can at that stage decide to not go ahead and 
>>> call gUM.
>>>
>>> -- 
>>> You are receiving this mail because:
>>> You are on the CC list for the bug.
>>> You are the assignee for the bug.
>

Received on Friday, 6 December 2013 06:10:57 UTC